WW1 Military Motors - 1916 set x 50 cards

[Dave1418]

Situated on the west bank of the river Medway and south of the old A2 the premises prior to its demolition was used by the council for many years with a small ambulance station at the rear. A lovely building which retained many of its original features and escaped the hideous development of the area in the 1960's. Progress marches on but not always for the best.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Situated on the west bank of the river Medway and south of the old A2 the premises prior to its demolition was used by the council for many years with a small ambulance station at the rear. A lovely building which retained many of its original features and escaped the hideous development of the area in the 1960's. Progress marches on but not always for the best.

Dave,

Many thanks for the update, I was wondering what if anything became of the excellent River Medway frontage after the former Aveling & Porter premises was demolished, and was any part of the original building retained ?

Regards,

LF

[Guest Andy Anderson]

I have a WW1 clasp knife in excellent condition and would willingly sell at a reasonable price. I apologize if this site is not the venue to pursue a sale

It is quite good shape.. with can opener and marlin spike.. riveted metal body

captaa@shaw.ca

<image1.JPG>

[Lancashire Fusilier]

I have a WW1 clasp knife in excellent condition and would willingly sell at a reasonable price. I apologize if this site is not the venue to pursue a sale

It is quite good shape.. with can opener and marlin spike.. riveted metal body

captaa@shaw.ca

<image1.JPG>

Andy,

Welcome to the Forum.

This Thread relating to WW1 Motors etc., would not be the best section of the Forum in which to offer your WW1 Clasp Knife for sale, there are two much better locations where your item will get much better exposure. They are the section ' Paraphernalia of War - Equipment ' and there is also a ' GWF Classifieds ' section, however, there may be some conditions relating to using that particular section.

Anyway, good luck with selling your Clasp Knife.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

With reference to post # 4410 and Mike's question regarding the Mark IV Tank's underside armour-plating, over the next few days, I shall be posting a series of photographs taken in Bourlon Wood following the fierce fighting which took place in and around Cambrai in the Winter of 1917 involving the Mark IV Tank.

The village of Bourlon and Bourlon Wood, are located some 3-4 miles West of Cambrai in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of Northern France.

Based on the photograph's captions, and also linking the photographs based on the locations shown in these photographs, they have all been photographed in a part of Bourlon Wood which was in front of a distinctly designed building, known locally as the ' Pavillion du Garde '.

Again, based on captions and the details shown in the various photographs, the Mark IV Tanks involved were ' F6 - Feu d'artificer ' and ' G21 - Grasshopper II ', both of which were knocked out and destroyed in November 1917.

Having been knocked out and severely damaged, both tanks were subsequently dismantled on the spot, and salvaged for their valuable spare parts, and the photographs show the various stages of their dismemberment.

The first interesting photograph, shows the Mark IV Male Tank ' Grasshopper II ', which has been turned on it's side during the salvaging and dismantling process, and it gives us a very rarely seen complete view of the underside of a Mark IV Tank, and clearly illustrates the layout and construction of the Mark IV Tank's 6 mm underside armour-plating.

The Mark IV Male Tank ' Grasshopper II ', which was destroyed by a massive internal explosion, the force of which, blew outwards several sections of the 6 mm armour-plating on Grasshopper II's front underside. The result of which can clearly be seen in this photograph, which also gives us excellent details of the shape of these underside 6 mm armour-plated panels, and their riveted construction.

To the far left of this photograph, which is the Tank's underside rear-end, we can also see the armoured box which contained the Mark IV Tank's 70 gallon petrol tank.

LF

IWM This image is reproduced strictly for non-commercial research and private study purposes as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised.

[GRANVILLE]

That's certainly not a view I've ever seen before, well done LF. You can imagine the force of the explosion and one can only assume the end for the poor crew inside would have been pretty instantaneous?

David

[Lancashire Fusilier]

That's certainly not a view I've ever seen before, well done LF. You can imagine the force of the explosion and one can only assume the end for the poor crew inside would have been pretty instantaneous?

David

David,

That is a very rare photograph, showing as it does the Tank's complete underside, and when you see the other photographs of the damage caused to the Tanks, it certainly illustrates how almost impossible it was for a Tank's crew to survive any type of internal explosion or fire.

Regards,

LF

[Modelmaker]

That's certainly not a view I've ever seen before, well done LF. You can imagine the force of the explosion and one can only assume the end for the poor crew inside would have been pretty instantaneous?

David

One can only hope their end was a swift one, but those who had to dismantle and clear up the remains must have been traumatised, similar stories exist about those who had to "clean out" tanks in WW2.

George.

[GRANVILLE]

One can only hope their end was a swift one, but those who had to dismantle and clear up the remains must have been traumatised, similar stories exist about those who had to "clean out" tanks in WW2.

George.

Doesn't bear thinking about, does it. Dreadful. Such is war I suppose.

David

[Lancashire Fusilier]

One can only hope their end was a swift one, but those who had to dismantle and clear up the remains must have been traumatised, similar stories exist about those who had to "clean out" tanks in WW2.

Doesn't bear thinking about, does it. Dreadful. Such is war I suppose.

This very graphic photograph of a burned out British Female Tank and it's crew, who could not make it out of the inferno, says it all.

LF

This image is reproduced strictly for non-commercial research and private study purposes as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

With reference to post #4430, here are both Tanks ' F6 - Feu d'artificer ' and ' G21 - Grasshopper II ', as seen from both sides, knocked out and destroyed in Bourlon Wood during November 1917.

' Grashopper II ', which suffered the massive internal explosion which not only blew out her underside armour plating but also blew out the Sponsons and probably the roof, is seen on the right in this first photograph, and we can see the major destruction caused to both Tanks.

As Winter set in and the snows arrived, both Tanks were left in this position in Bourlon Wood, and the following Spring of 1918, they were dismantled and salvaged for their spare parts.

LF

This image is reproduced strictly for non-commercial research and private study purposes as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Both Tanks ' F6 - Feu d'artificer ' and ' G21 - Grasshopper II ', as seen from the other side of Bourlon Wood during November 1917, and in this photograph, ' Grasshopper II ' is on the left.

In the background, we can see the ' Pavillion du Garde ' structure, which was important in identifying these photographs and the location of the Tanks in Bourlon Wood.

Again, we can see the major destruction caused to these two Tanks during the fighting in Bourlon Wood.

LF

This image is reproduced strictly for non-commercial research and private study purposes as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

I would have though that the underside would have been thicker than 6mm- that's only a quarter of an inch.

I suppose in later times, the underside would need better protection.

[johnboy]

When they were designed attack from underneath might not have been considered. Were the side and top in thicker armour plating?

[Dave1418]

Dave,

Many thanks for the update, I was wondering what if anything became of the excellent River Medway frontage after the former Aveling & Porter premises was demolished, and was any part of the original building retained ?

Regards,

LF

Hi LF

nothing left at all the river frontage has a nice footpath and grass verge where if you look south along the river you can see the where old Shorts flying boat

factory used to be, it was a very busy embankment and river at one time

Best regards

[Lancashire Fusilier]

I would have though that the underside would have been thicker than 6mm- that's only a quarter of an inch.

I suppose in later times, the underside would need better protection.

When they were designed attack from underneath might not have been considered. Were the side and top in thicker armour plating?

As detailed in previous post # 4411 :-

A Tank's overall weight was always a consideration, and to keep the Mark IV's weight at 28 tons ( Male ) 27 tons ( Female ), the Mark IV's armour-plating was 12 mm thick for the most critical front of the tank, 8 mm for the tank's sides, and for the generally less exposed top and underside of the tank, 6 mm.

The Mark IV's 70 gallon fuel tank, located low down at the rear of the Tank, was protected in an armour-plated box.

While climbing at a steep angle, the underside of the Mark IV Tank protected by 6 mm armour-plating, would certainly have been vulnerable to German anti-tank fire, particularly from the massive German 13.2 mm T-Gewehr Anti-Tank Rifle round.

Regards,

LF

[Modelmaker]

Thinner plate was used on tanks even in WW2, it was primarily to reduce overall weight. mines created problems, so quite often, in armoured / scout cars, sand bags were placed on the floor to absorb the explosion.

With tanks, in general they would not show the underside very often, but were vulnerable when going up trench sides.

Side and top armour was thicker, I think the bottom plates were steel (un-armoured).

George.

[David Filsell]

Is it known - a guesstimate perhaps - what percentage of the British tanks deployed were knocked out by enemy action?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Is it known - a guesstimate perhaps - what percentage of the British tanks deployed were knocked out by enemy action?

David,

WW1 Tank losses seemed to have been very high, I read somewhere that for the Battle of Cambrai, when some 300 British Tanks went into action against the Germans, of which, 179 were either destroyed by enemy action, broke down on the battlefield and were ditched, with a few failing to start due to mechanical problems, that represents close to 60% of those Tanks that assembled for the battle.

I suspect, that 60% figure may have been a good average.

Hopefully, someone has good documented statistics.

Regards,

LF

[MikeMeech]

As detailed in previous post # 4411 :-

A Tank's overall weight was always a consideration, and to keep the Mark IV's weight at 28 tons ( Male ) 27 tons ( Female ), the Mark IV's armour-plating was 12 mm thick for the most critical front of the tank, 8 mm for the tank's sides, and for the generally less exposed top and underside of the tank, 6 mm.

The Mark IV's 70 gallon fuel tank, located low down at the rear of the Tank, was protected in an armour-plated box.

While climbing at a steep angle, the underside of the Mark IV Tank protected by 6 mm armour-plating, would certainly have been vulnerable to German anti-tank fire, particularly from the massive German 13.2 mm T-Gewehr Anti-Tank Rifle round.

Regards,

LF

Hi

From the documentation I have read the constant theme from the Tank Corps is the threat from German artillery pieces being used against them, not 13.2 mm anti-tank rifles or even armour piercing rounds from machine guns. The artillery could kill tanks quite effectively, that's why in 1918 the Tank Corps wanted RAF aircraft to deal with those guns when possible, making it the main role in air/tank support, the other threats appear to be minor in comparison.

Mike

[Lancashire Fusilier]

From the documentation I have read the constant theme from the Tank Corps is the threat from German artillery pieces being used against them, not 13.2 mm anti-tank rifles or even armour piercing rounds from machine guns. The artillery could kill tanks quite effectively, that's why in 1918 the Tank Corps wanted RAF aircraft to deal with those guns when possible, making it the main role in air/tank support, the other threats appear to be minor in comparison.

Mike,

I am sure you are correct, the Germans were known to have very effective Anti-Tank Artillery both in WW1 and WW2.

Any of the German's anti-tank armaments were of grave concern to WW1 Tank crews, and it was only with the arrival of the Mark IV Tank that the German's armour-piercing ' K ' round became ineffective and obsolete against the Mark IV's armour-plating, however, it is known that both the German Anti-Tank Artillery and the T-Gewehr were extremely dangerous to a British Tank.

I have a copy of an excellent book ' The Tank Corps ' by Major Clough Williams-Ellis & A. Williams-Ellis, with a Forward by Major-General H.J. Elles, C.B., D.S.O., Commander of the Tank Corps, published in 1919, in which both the German T-Gewehr Anti-Tank Gun and the German Anti-Tank Artillery are mentioned as being a problem for the Britsh Tanks, and there is a very telling passage ( copy attached ) which quotes from one of Sir Douglas Haig's Despatches sent during the First Battle of Cambrai in November 1917, in which he refers to a lone German Artillery Officer, manning his Anti-Tank Gun single-handed until he himself was also killed, and knocking out 16 British Tanks as each one came over a hill at Flesquieres.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

nothing left at all the river frontage has a nice footpath and grass verge where if you look south along the river you can see the where old Shorts flying boat

factory used to be, it was a very busy embankment and river at one time

Dave,

Many thanks for the update, sounds like a nice part of the river.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

As the Winter of 1917/18 set in, and the snows arrived, both the knocked out Tanks ' F6 - Feu d'artificer ' and ' G21 - Grasshopper II ', were to remain in Bourlon Wood until the Spring of 1918, when they were dismantled and salvaged for their valuable spare parts.

LF

This image is reproduced strictly for non-commercial research and private study purposes as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised.

[David Filsell]

I am no expert on tanks, but In view of your estimate of losses, their unreliability, are there serious questions to asked about their real importance in war?

[Scalyback]

Excellent work LF and the rest.

David good question, depends on the theatre of war and opposition. First Gulf was an outstanding use of armour. In hindsight would we use anything like the tank on the western front and say concentrate on air power?